The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid • Hacker News Board

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#231

Post by Karunamon » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:27 PM UTC

ct12 wrote: post #138

Karunamon wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm stating that a social environment where a man loses a job Mozilla thought he was qualified for because of private personal beliefs Private "personal beliefs" that he reached into his wallet and tried to force into law. This is the one thing that people don't seem to understand. Eich didn't just think gays were second class citizens. This isn't a "thoughtcrime" he's being pilloried for. It was the action. The do…

Hey this is my first post. The word "bigot" seems to be used a lot in these post. I was curious to find out what was the exact definition of the word and found this on m-w.com: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc...one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" I have a hard time believing that a guy who worked for a compan…

Welcome to HN.

Do you have a better term for someone who contributes their own hard-earned money to a hate group?

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#232

Post by dang » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:28 PM UTC

seertaak wrote: post #193

dang wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be ashamed of yourself. I appreciate the intensity of the issue, but personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. Edit: thanks to seertaak below for pointing out that this was trivial compared to what Karunamon was responding to. I get that it gives the wrong impression to admonish one person while ignoring something much worse. On the other hand, we (and certainly I) can't read all the comments, so th…

You really should be saying that to bluntly_said -- his/her comments are far more unhinged than Kuranamon. e.g. "fucking PATHETIC" "yo FUCKHEAD" "FUCK YOU" "...you're a bully. A fucking FUCKHEAD bully" Two wrongs don't make a right, but "you should be ashamed of yourself" is pretty tame compared to the above.

Ugh. I couldn't agree more. That comment is far worse, and I've banned bluntly_said. Thank you for the heads-up.

We can't read all the comments, and I didn't see that one. Community help is indispensable here.

All: When you see a comment that is truly toxic for HN, please flag it by clicking "link" to go to the item page and then "flag" at the top.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#233

Post by Karunamon » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:29 PM UTC

bluntly_said wrote: post #209

krainboltgreene wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound terribly un-empathetic and it ruins any point you're trying to make.

I don't think it does. I think too many people are trying to short circuit real discussion around this issue by either calling people bigots, or taking offense to the term "bully".

If you don't want people to take offense, then DON'T FUCKING INSULT THEM!

http://gyazo.com/780f9733394829fce3b5577edf4091b5

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#234

Post by baddox » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:36 PM UTC

egh wrote: post #148

baddox wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give me something more specific? Are you referring to the fact that Brown vs. BoE applied specifically to public schools rather than private businesses? That's true, but the separate but equal doctrine allowed states to prohibit private businesses from having integrated facilities regardless of whether the business owners were racist.

Yes, among other things. Just read the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws Are you implying there were a bunch of southern business owners who wanted to provide integrated service, but were unable to because of Jim Crow? That's what it sounds like, and it's so wrong it's astounding.

I'm well aware of Jim Crow laws. They mandated the racial segregation of public facilities, the military, restrooms, etc. What is the mistake you think I'm making about Jim Crow laws?

Surely there must have been at least a few business owners that didn't want to spend their resources on separate facilities. Otherwise the state laws which forced segregation wouldn't have been necessary.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#235

Post by bane » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:36 PM UTC

dubfan wrote: post #73

Karunamon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a fundamental difference between recognizing that what people do with their lives is their business, and attempting to force them to stop through legislative fiat. Nobody's forcing you to do or not do anything by allowing marriage equality. The same cannot be said of its opponents.

See, the anti-gay-marriage crowd doesn't see it that way. Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs. You might say they are wrong, and you're entitled to say that in our free society. Where my problem comes in is when we try to stamp out any opposing view with the trump card of "bigotry".…

> Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs.

Let's buy that argument for a moment. And let's suppose that religious interference in law isn't explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

Which religion or religious faction then should supply the law? The particular Christian denomination I was raised in says gay people can marry and they'll even do the marrying. And they can even become priests! They represent over 2 million (1 in 150) Americans. I can think of at least a half dozen other Christian denominations alone that not only allow for same-sex marriage, but will perform marriage and otherwise allow for full religious participation of gay members.

Why should the teachings of my religion be shut down in favor of somebody else's? Who gets to pick which religion we follow? Am I now being forced to follow somebody else's religion?

(I don't support forcing other religions to observe same-sex relationships, people are free to leave their religion and go somewhere else or nowhere as they please).

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#236

Post by dang » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:39 PM UTC

bluntly_said wrote: post #112

Karunamon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and part of my argument, remove rights from the word marriage. And as I said before, I'm fine with this, but it's a process that takes longer than fixing the inequality now . You could write a law that says all marriages are now civil unions, but in doing so you've broken the dependency chain to any out-of-state agency that uses "marriage" as anything in particular underpinning any kind of contract. The simplest, ea…

Let me stoop to your level for a moment: Yo, FUCKHEAD: You claimed appropriating marriage was a band-aid. BUT... you ALREADY HAD THE FUCKING RIGHTS. You JUST WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT WHAT MARRIAGE IS. FUCK YOU. You don't give a SHIT about the rights, because you don't even know that you already have them. You JUST WANT TO FORCE RELIGION to let you call it marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Cali…

I have banned bluntly_said because of this comment. Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

We're happy to unban anyone who gives us reason to believe they will behave better in the future. Please send any questions to hn@ycombinator.com.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#237

Post by sigzero » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:39 PM UTC

krainboltgreene wrote: post #172

bambax wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really not the point at all; we're way way past the debate pro- or against- gay marriage. (Disclaimer: like probably 99% of people on HN, I'm strongly in favor of gay marriage). The point(s) are: - is it acceptable to hunt a man down and force him to step down from a job he's highly qualified for, because he has held in the past political opinions that not only differ from your own, but were then mainstream a…

Jesus, "hunt a man down" and "ruin a man's (otherwise impeccable) professional life"? You have a really low bar for using these phrases and it makes your argument that much more ridiculous (and false). None of these things happened and you miss half the context in which similar but less hyperbolic things happened.

No they pretty much did that.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#238

Post by dang » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:41 PM UTC

anonbanker wrote: post #86

bp123 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the world would be a better place if all anti-equality people had donated $1000 to fund constitutional amendments preventing gay marriage. Please. You can't pretend to be a good citizen for equality while donating $1000 to a cause whose only purpose is anti-equality. And look, he could of just apologized and he would have been fine. He didn't. That is why I find this backlash backlash to be just "mob justice" th…

What a fantastic strawman you've constructed! Give me a minute to marvel at it. You do excellent work. Okay, now that the dazzle has worn off, perhaps you could tell me when I said that Anti-gay activists donating money to fund constitutional amendments would be a good thing? because I really don't remember saying that. However, I agree with your second paragraph. You can't be a good citizen for equality while donati…

What a fantastic strawman you've constructed! Give me a minute to marvel at it. You do excellent work.

Please don't use aggressive sarcasm on Hacker News. It adds no information and corrodes civility.

Consider how much better this comment would be if one deleted everything before "Perhaps". Editing out inflammatory language is the low-hanging fruit of optimizing for signal/noise ratio.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#239

Post by jerryr » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:42 PM UTC

bluntly_said wrote: post #206

jerryr wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, let's take the facts in question off the table and say that there are absolutely no differences between marriage and domestic partnerships besides the name. At best then, Prop 8 kept us "separate but equal". History has shown that doctrine to be discriminatory and oppressive. There's an inherent inequality in my inability to say that I'm married.

And I think the separate but equal problem is a very compelling reason to remove rights from marriage entirely. Codifying religious beliefs into law shouldn't be accepted. Trying to redefine religious beliefs in law stirs up more controversy than it should. Amending the law to force all couples to get the equivalent of a civil unions satisfies both camps. Further, once marriage holds no rights, the government cannot…

I completely agree with that idea. I'd be all in favor of separating a legal partnership from a religious marriage.

Re: The Hypocrisy Of Sam Yagan and OkCupid

#240

Post by bane » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 8:46 PM UTC

bluntly_said wrote: post #206

jerryr wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, let's take the facts in question off the table and say that there are absolutely no differences between marriage and domestic partnerships besides the name. At best then, Prop 8 kept us "separate but equal". History has shown that doctrine to be discriminatory and oppressive. There's an inherent inequality in my inability to say that I'm married.

And I think the separate but equal problem is a very compelling reason to remove rights from marriage entirely. Codifying religious beliefs into law shouldn't be accepted. Trying to redefine religious beliefs in law stirs up more controversy than it should. Amending the law to force all couples to get the equivalent of a civil unions satisfies both camps. Further, once marriage holds no rights, the government cannot…

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a secular and a religious "marriage". Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit. Quite a few religions and religious factions have provide same-sex marriages long before it was ever explicitly allowed in law.

When most people get a regular 'ol marriage, it's actually two events. Their religious marriage, as recognized by their faith, and the civil "marriage" as defined and recognized by law. You can get one without the other if you wish. Just get a religious marriage, and don't bother with the legal licensing and registration, or conversely, just get a legal marriage and don't bother with the religious aspects of it. I can't say it's always been this way, but it's basically always been this way.

The problem comes from the simply face that there's a very large body of law that required people to enter into an agreement specifically called "marriage" for those laws to apply to them. More importantly SCOTUS has recognized "marriage" as a fundamental right.

In theory, same-sex couple always had the right to get married, legally and religiously (if their religion allowed), and should have had those laws apply to them. But it was only recently when same-sex couples tried to enforce the application of those laws on themselves that the legal hypocrisy became apparent and government attempted to separate those people from their legal right.

If law had used the word "quijibo" instead of "marriage" it wouldn't have mattered any. People could have gotten religiously married, then filed for their quijibo. The word choice is irrelevant, other than the legal inertia that's already behind the word.